Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Requiem for the Bailout Storyline
It's mid-October, and the Wall Street bailout that was supposed to save the economy from collapse is a flop.
Only two weeks ago, the media hype behind the $700 billion bailout was so intense that it sometimes verged on hysteria. More recent events should not be allowed to obscure the reality that the news media played a pivotal role in stampeding the country into a bailout that was unwise and unjust.
Exceptions in the news coverage underscore the fact that other perspectives were readily available when the Bush administration began pushing its bailout proposal in late September. "Many of the nation's brightest economic minds are warning that if the Wall Street bailout passes, it would be a dangerous rush job," McClatchy Newspapers reported on Sept. 26. For instance, economist James K. Galbraith called the warnings of economic disaster in the absence of a swift bailout "more hype than real risk." He added: "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that."
When the House of Representatives rejected the bailout on Sept. 29, all media hell broke loose. During the next few days, journalists and selected sources took turns decrying the failure of House naysayers to recognize the urgency of the moment. The nation's economy was at stake, and craven ideologues on Capitol Hill were dithering around!
Countless editorials and pundits castigated the House members who had voted no. The condemners spanned the mainline media spectrum; liberals, moderates and conservatives excoriated the House and called for a swift reversal.
Senate passage came on Thursday, Oct. 2, and the next day a chastened House approved a revised version. That Friday afternoon, President Bush signed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout into law.
Despite all the media hype about how the bailout measure would quickly steady the stock market, it fell and kept falling. Over the next week, ending Oct. 10, the Dow made history as stocks plunged by 18 percent in five trading days.
And what about the ostensible main reason for the humongous bailout in the first place -- unfreezing the credit markets? Well, in spite of the enormous media outcry for the bailout to get credit flowing, it didn't. And the key economic factor in the recession -- housing -- remained just as stuck as before.
At the Center for Economic and Policy Research, on Oct. 1 -- two days before the House caved -- economist Dean Baker addressed a pivotal flaw in the spin. "It would be foolish to issue a mortgage loan without a very substantial down payment, since the expected decline in house prices will quickly destroy much or all of the equity held by the homeowner," he wrote. "In other words, it is the drop in house prices that is causing banks to demand 20 percent down payments in many markets, not their lack of capital. This situation will only be changed by a government house-price support program. Improving the financial conditions of banks will make little difference."
But the media storyline required -- in fact, demanded -- that committing many billions of dollars to the "rescue" was the essential step to be taken from Capitol Hill.
After the House initially balked at approving the Wall Street bailout on Sept. 29, the range of New York Times op-ed columnists took turns with the denunciation chores. None was more bitterly caustic than David Brooks. On Sept. 30, under the headline "Revolt of the Nihilists," he denounced the noncompliant House members for failing to heed "the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed."
A week later, on Oct. 7, when Brooks wrote a follow-up column, the bailout had been law for several days. But the stock market was plunging faster than ever, and the credit crunch was unabated. "At these moments, central bankers and Treasury officials leap in to try to make the traders feel better," Brooks wrote. "Officials pretend they're coming up with policy responses, but much of what they do is political theater."
Now he tells us.
Before the bailout gained approval on Capitol Hill, the media narrative was dangling the prospects of immediate results. But afterwards, there were none.
"Global markets have so far given thumbs down to the giant $700 billion bailout plan," former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said in an Oct. 8 public-radio commentary, five days after the bailout had become law. "The easy answer to why the bailout hasn't worked is it hasn't been implemented yet. But its purpose was largely psychological -- to boost confidence that the government is doing something big to clear out bad debts that have been clogging the system. That psychological boost should have happened as soon as the bailout was enacted. Yet no one seems to believe that $700 billion will make much difference."
On Oct. 12, the lead story on the New York Times front page wondered aloud "whether the administration squandered valuable time in trying to sell Congress on a plan that officials had failed to think through in advance."
The Times now tells us that the much-hyped bailout plans to "buy distressed assets" will be diminished in favor of a "capital infusion program for banks." But what hasn't changed with the $700 billion planning is a basic approach for trickle-down instead of trickle-up.
As the Institute for Policy Studies pointed out on Oct. 1, "A real 'bailout' would target the troubled households of working American families. A $200 billion 'Main Street Stimulus Package' could bolster the real economy and those left vulnerable by the subprime mortgage meltdown."
Components of such a stimulus package could include "a $130 billion annual investment in renewable energy to stimulate good jobs anchored in local economies and reduce our dependency on oil" -- and "a $50 billion outlay to help keep people in foreclosed homes through refinancing and creating new homeownership and housing opportunities" -- and "a $20 billion aid package to states to address the squeeze on state and local government services that declining tax revenues are now forcing." But that kind of discourse for grassroots economic stimulus hasn't gotten into the media storyline this fall.
It's now being revised with quite a bit of backspin. But the media storyline for justifying the Wall Street bailout was great while it lasted. And it lasted long enough to stampede Congress into approving a massive jolt of taxpayer money to redistribute wealth upwards in the United States.
- Posted in
61 Comments so far
Show AllThese media "stars" are grotesquely overpaid, and were biased towards maintaining the equity in their own stock portfolios.
We need Mike Royko type reporters again.
Fascinating how the name 'Obama' doesn't appear in this article. Mr. Soloman was an Obama delegate at the DNC, and a steady Obama supporter. So, there's the typical whitewashing you see from Dems to try to only mention Republicans.
Meanwhile, Obama paid a critical role in pushing this 'theft\bailout' through Congress.
The 'theft\bailout' was massively unpopular with the citizens, who correctly smelled a rat. I've seen numbers that said phone calls and letters coming into Congressional offices was a 100 to 1 against. There had already been a revolt on the Republican side of the house.
So, it seems very likely that in behind-closed-doors meetings, the Republican leaders demanded Democratic support on this. Without that, the 'theft\bailout' would have likely died as there would be no way the Republicans would be pushing an unpopular bailout for Wall Street just before an election on their own. They certainly demanded, and received, significant Democratic backing to make this 'theft\bailout' become 'bi-partisan.'
The socalled Democratic leaders, Reid and Pelosi, played their roles. Given the size of the stock portfolios and the amount of Wall St money in Dem accounts, this is not a surprise.
But, it is also pretty much a certainty that Obama's support was also a key part of this deal. The Republican leaders would have wanted McCain to come twist some Republican arms to secure passage. And the 'add-ons' to the package were all stuff Republicans would want, so its clear that this was the strategy of the leadership ... get the votes needed for passage from the Republican side.
Only, there's no way McCain would have come back to DC to push for this 'theft\bailout' on his own. He would have insisted that Obama do the same. That way, when the 80% or so of the American people who opposed this bailout got upset, they would have no easy choice of going to Obama.
In order for this 'theft\bailout' to pass, Obama was a key part of the deal.
Cute how the Dems quickly whitewash out the Dem part of this conspiracy to rip us all off out of the picture, then hope noone notices.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
There is plenty of blame to go around and over the last 30 years, not 8. This entire fiasco was made possible by the Republican Congress passing a bill by Phil Gramm and signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton repealing Glass-Stegall. Without repealing that sensible law this simply could not have happened here. But every political group has lent a hand to this. There are no innocent parties. Only those that carry more guilt like the lasst 8 years.
Have you seen any evidence that Paulson and Kash & Karry have done anything with the "theft\bailout'\" money so far. Wasn't it "vote to pass now becvause tomorrow we'll crash"....weeks later...what liars.
"I've seen numbers that said phone calls and letters coming into Congressional offices was a 100 to 1 against."
I'd think it was higher than that. I haven't talked to a single person that favored it, not even the right wingers I know.
"They also begged Mr. Paulson not to impose tough restrictions on executive pay and golden-parachute deals for executives who are fired. Mr. Paulson heeded those pleas.”
I'm sure that will thrill everyone. I know its a relief to me to know he isn't being a meanie.
Its amazing to me, reflecting on this theft, that the only ones opposing it were a bunch of conservative Republicans along with some conservative Democrats. I felt the band should have been playing the old British military tune. "The World Turned Upside Down"
It now appears that language inserted into the bail-out to semi-nationalize banks may, MAY make the difference in avoiding a depression. Paulson didn't even want this, but has apparently seen the light. People I care about are worried about losing their jobs. Personally, I refuse to apply any blame to any congressperson for voting either for or against in what seemed to be a no-win situation in some respects.
I read yesterday that Congress was threatened with MARTIAL LAW if they didn't vote the bill through.
A few of my friends have been maintaining for a awhile now that the wealthy elite of the country would attempt to grab as much as possible before Bush left office. I thought they meant government power. It seems I was mistaken. They meant money. OUR money. Cuz it sure as hell aint theirs.
ex
Who watches the watchers?
I have & do call it the 700b swindle, and as you rightly point out ErisX...this is really about getting paid. Pay Day! The government isn't fooling anyone, the vast majority of people across the country knew the 700b swindle is just wrong. It didn't seem to matter to my Senator, of whom I emailed my personal 'NO' vote, and every one of the rep/sen from my state voted 'yes'. Those 'representatives' don't represent the people-they represent their own bellies. Pay Day!
vote this election for anyone other than incumbent.
vote Nader, he was/is against 700b swindle, sorry Obama & McCain supporters but your candidates voted 'yes'.
wild;)
Does anyone besides myself think that this whole fiasco (stagnent to declining wages for workers, usurous interest rates...up to 532% interest for payday loans for example, the deliberate attempt of republicans to keep democratic voters either from voting or their votes from being counted, subprime mortgages, protest suppression [fenced off areas for those voicing opposing opinions], tax cuts for the filthy rich, skyrocketing food and fuel prices, taxpayers bailing out rich bankers who in spite of irresponsible lending/investment practices still get to keep their trillions in pay and bonuses while the poor and middle class pay for it, and a complete lack of representation in our government, no healthcare, no retirement funding, and a loss of jobs to overseas sweatshops) will lead to anything but an eventual violent revolt (believe me, I would much rather see another viable alternative) out of desperation? In most countries, this would have already occurred. Folks, we are nothing but slaves when everything is boiled down to the basics. We work to increase the wealth of the already wealthy. This simply cannot go on.
The public is awakening, but slowly. In time that point of eruption will occur. We saw it's precursor in the public reaction to the 700 billion bailout. The fear you witness in Bush's eyes speaks to that awakening.
That $700 billion, really $850B, was nothing more than a complete and total grand larceny. That money will simply be converted to large vacation homes, yachts and what have you, and nothing will change. I mean this sincerely. It could not be more blatant. Too big to fail my ass.
-- EKATON --
Solomon says "the country was stampeded." Excuse me? Congress received a torrent of communiques from constituents for over a week that fried the congress website and shutdown the switchboard (these accounts from staffers). The message to congress was uniformly HELL NO.
Norman, there was no stampede in the country - just within the party leaderships, where genuflecting to Wall Street is de riguer. Norman, once a principled reporter and now a partisan hack. Did times get tough, I wonder?
As Thomas Mann of Brookings says, "Congress is the broken branch." Vote the incumbents out. (Yes, "your guy" too.)
www.votenader.org
Voting them out simply isn't a strategy.
There's too many like them ready to take their place.
Voting out the incumbents and voting anti-establishment third party candidates in their place is not only a strategy, but the ONLY electoral strategy that will benefit the people. The USA has the lowest voter turnout among democracies precisely because Americans are taught to avoid voting for anti-establishment candidates. The election of anti-establishment candidates puts democracy to work for the people. This is one of the great non-violent revolutionary actions the people can take. Everyone go to the voting booth and write in anti-establishment third-party candidates if you want the democracy to work FOR YOU.
How would that work well for McCain?
.Thank you for the clarity. I was beginning to think Id been the only one to smell that tripe from Normie. Or missed a few issues of my local paper.....
The torrent of calls and emails coupled with a GOP that made a deal with the Dems and then broke it, first agreeing to vote at least as many ayes and did the Democrats, and then failing to follow through attempting to make it seem like a solely Democratic passage....
The deal stinks, the democrats are weak and ineffective and the nation is seriously screwed.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The situation we're in is without precedent and the commentariat is fighting the last war, as they always always do. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king but these clueless, arrogant fools are nothing but snake-oil salesmen with Blackberries. Their cell phones are smarter than they are but not nearly as greedy.
The media seems to be little more than a mouthpiece for the Administration. Either no one at MSM really understands what is going on, or is purposely being told to lie to the people. It is quite telling that there is virtually NO coverage of third party candidates and what they might have to say. This fact alone should scream loudly that MSM is severely biased and not much more than a propaganda machine for the 'elites.'
After the bailout was passed, they said that don't expect it to have an immediate effect, though part of the urgency was a need for immediate bank liquidity to prevent a catastrophic meltdown (i.e. loans to businesses to prevent even more layoffs, etc.). So then, how can the economy wait 'months' for those said banks to start loaning again? We should smell a BIG rat here.
Now that the bailout has been passed, I bet MSM will move on to something else so the people will forget about it. With the possible exception of Lou Dobbs, probably there will be little mention of it. The top brass of these presumably crumbling companies will continue their 'feasting' as usual--this time at taxpayers expense. And Samson is right: where is Obama? Let Nader into the next debate to bring up issues beyond the accepted 'talking points.' What are they afraid of? The truth?
Good gracious, don't expect anything from Lou Dobbs. All you'll ever get is a little red meat ranting about immigrants or financial boondoggles that are too big to ignore, so let's rant and rave on!
Probably don't have to worry as much about the 'immigrant problem' now, since jobs are dropping like flies, and because social programs are likely to follow. Love or hate Dobbs at least he speaks for himself, but is a little too conservative for my tastes on most issues. He does have Nader on his show from time to time too. But this discussion is not really about Dobbs, is it?
Nothing changes folks, Congress is made up of mostly attoneys for big business and that is why I have coined the term CORPORATE SOLDIERS.I would not even call Congress a duopoly, but a unified, corporate, business party is much closer to the actual truth. Vote third party.
Bullshit article. Not even s mention that the CONgress was stampeded with the threat of martial law. The American public was against the bailout; left behind as usual by the CONgress and the MSM.
Stockbrokers, in their morbid humor (they have to survive emotions that would tear the rest of us apart), would call today the "dead cat bounce". Even a dead cat, if thrown from a skyscraper, will bounce when it hits the pavement.
The bailout didn't cause the dead cat bounce anymore than the non-bailout after 9/11 caused the market to recover after a week of plunging prices. It's just that investors got over their panic and saw bargains.
Personally I still think the U.S. government is also close to bankrupt, and that reality will hit sometime, probably not before the election. If the government and economy were stronger, something more could be done about the freefall. Every Republican congressman in Washington would do anything to avoid an economic catastrophe one month before their own elections.
Oh, the bailout! They just paid off some rich people. It's nice if you're rich.
This latest escapade was NOT an instance of politicians doing the best they could to restore order in the face of explosive mass panic.
From the beginning, the frantic urgency to speedily "do something" rather than be afterwards accused of craven "doing nothing" was top-down. Oh, there were plenty of quotes from politicians, especially the Democrats who originally seemed to boldly and courageously throw themselves upon the tracks to slow down the runaway locomotive of still another piece of reprehensible legislation, crying that in the end, they couldn't just "do nothing"!
I'm not the first person to affirm that the bailout happened pretty much like the illegal war of aggression and occupation in Iraq; the highest levels of government reached a BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS that invading Iraq was inevitable, despite some quibbles around the margins, and endorsed that dastardly deed in the face of much public skepticism and doubt.
I haven't yet read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", but I recognized the elements as soon as the prospective "bailout" was announced. And yes, Solomon's article fails to name names of those prominent persons in BOTH parties who unreservedly set out to pass this legislative larceny, using all of the usual rhetorical life preservers, e.g. "We'll FIX IT afterwards!"
Meaning, I suppose, that eventually SOME of those wasted trillions will, um, "trickle down" to the taxpayers whose pockets were picked and turned inside-out.
I freely admit that economics makes me glaze over; when I come upon words like "illiquidity", I quietly leave by the same door I came in. But even I knew that this "bailout" was a scam from the get-go, just as even I knew that Saddam's Iraq was no "grave and growing threat" to Amerika. How come that gang of rich corporate and para-corporate technocrats in DC so vehemently assert otherwise in these situations?
Once you understand that DC stands for Depravity Central, then you can understand "How come that gang of rich corporate and para-corporate technocrats in DC so vehemently assert otherwise in these situations?" Simply, it's their job. The last true champion of the Common Man was Henry Wallace, but he was thrown to the sidelines as the District of Columbia began morphing to Depravity Central after the 1944 election.
When you start to feel "glazed over," go to our newest Nobel winner, Paul Krugman, at his NY Times blog. You'll learn a thing or two. Krugman is a smart, mainstreet liberal with a good heart. He'd make a fine Sec Treas for Obama.
Committing ourselves to an all-out TOTAL BOYCOTT of all corporate mainstream media - that means your morning newspapers, network and cable news, etc. Instead, we could promote Democracy Now! and progressive news sites. We have to convince more and more people to join us! I admit that I did watch a little bit of mainstream coverage on the day the bailout didn't pass (temporarily) just to see how the media would spin it & cheerlead for the administration & their co-horts, the Democrats, but this was a minor lapse. We DO have the power to hurt them where it counts: in THEIR wallets! STOP consuming their insanity!
I think the leftist media is doing a relatively decent job but I'd like to see all of the articles framed with the question: How to best organize the society for the maximum well-being of all? Seems that even the leftist media is avoiding this question, preferring to base its work on murky assumptions such as: "we need mass production, efficiencies of scale, concentration of wealth/power, and should feed the people fish, keep them dependent, not enlighten them, not teach them to feed themselves."
$700 billion - bailout
$700 billion - war costs
$700 billion - defense budget
$700 billion - oil imports
--------------
JACKPOT!
Developers are opening a new hotel/casino in Las Vegas (Lost Wages). It's called "Wall Street". The cool thing is you get to bet with other people's money. Each hotel room comes with a genuine public official to wait on you hand and foot. Of course, there's at least a 100 lobbyists in the lobby, also ready to serve you free food & drinks, vacation trips, iPods, women, whatever you want. Valet parking is offered, with a good chance the person parking your car is the person who made it. Some of the great new games they have are called "Derivatives", "Credit Default Swaps", and "Sub-Prime", just to name a few. The shows have top rated acts featuring former Republican officials, and are headlined by the ex-President and Vice President, doing their famous "Laurel & Hardy" impressions.
The seemingly deliberate obfuscation of how this mess was started and why is part of the problem because you cannot solve any problem without understanding its cause(s). I put the events that contributed to our "crisis" within a brief comparison to the Great Depression I posted on another site, which I offer here, too.
"The Depression started in 1921, in the farm sector, when highly inflated commodity prices caused by the World War crashed and never really recovered. At the time, the Ag sector underpined the whole US economy. But the day's media was focused on the "Return to Normalcy," and ignored the farm sector's plight. Fast forward to now. The lower and middle classes's incomes have declined in real terms for almost two decades, and in the post-industrial service economy, those two classes underpin the US economy in much the same manner as the farm sector in the 1920s. Credit ultimately stems from savings, and the US savings rate has been close to zero or negative for at least a decade and has relied on global savings to underwrite its credit/debt. It was known by many economists that this was unsustainable and the wall would eventually be hit. Higher energy prices caused the velocity of money to slow at the same time additional demands were put on global savings to pay for rapidly increasing costs of basic commodities. Meanwhile, hedge funds were gaming the indexes for specific derivitives, while massively and illegally short-selling numerous mortgage companies, which created a need for increased liquidity that was no longer available. Mortgage companies started to fail, while the hedge funds continued their attacks, which further dried up liquidity and started the "lack of confidence" process as it was difficult to determine friend from foe. The effect snowballed, and yet the hedge funds are still making the same illegal trades which continue to destroy liquidity and thus credit. The actions of the hedge funds are very similar to those who created the various Ponzi schemes that came crashing down in October 1929. The major difference is in the size of the monetary Black Holes, the current one being perhaps a billion times larger than the 1920's.
"The Great Depression was Man Made. The Greater Depression is also Man Made. Both have their international components, but the main damages in both were/are inflicted by greedy Americans who had/have the US government in their pocket and thus escpaed any form of regulation that might have prevented the debacle. What's happening now can get worse unless the hedge funds are arrested--literally. This act would greatly help to restore confidence between the few bankers remaining. The top hedge fund managers who knowingly caused this debacle must be tried for treason, and if found guilty suffer the same fate as the Rosenbergs. Congress must also take steps to regulate them out of existence."
This entire thing did not start with Clinton and the repeal of Glass Steagall. It has its roots long before that.
This incident was NOT just triggered by sub prime mortgages. It was made possible because of the system of Capitalism that exists.
Sub prime Mortgages are a convenient scapegoat. The poor are being scapegoated for this mess.
The exposure to derivatives is far larger then that of Sub Prime Mortgages. This is a systemic problem brought along by a fiat currency, the US dollar as a reserve currency, massive trade deficits endless wars and military spending and continual deficit budgets.
It has also been brought about by crooks as businessmen being put in charge of the countries finances.
It has been brought about because debt is seen as an asset to be bought and sold and that debt leveraged to acquire more assets which are then leveraged to acquire more debt.
Glass Steagall was only one of the bills that tried to keep a lid on such activities but had it NOT been repealed this day of reckoning would still of come.
PK
"Glass Steagall was only one of the bills that tried to keep a lid on such activities but had it NOT been repealed this day of reckoning would still of come."
I will have to somewhat disagree with you.
Our day of reckoning for living outside our means was certainly coming. This extreme mess could not have happened without the repeal of Glass-Stegall because Investment Banks could not have functioned the way they did. Nor could foreign Banks and companies taken advantage of it. Add to that the further deregulation, the lack of oversight that should have stopped a lot of it and BINGO! This is it.
The poor don't have anything to do with the sub prime mortgage mess, I don't think they made one sub-prime loan. ( my attempt at humor) The Community Finance rule had little to do with this. Republicans grasping at straws.
Deregulated capitalist economies are predictable....this will happen every time. Without regulation you can't have a capitalist economy when you get right down to it.
Then we will agree to disagree . Glass Steagall was in place when Savings and loans occurred as it was in place when LTCM collasped. Those were canaries in the coal mine....
It did nothing to prevent those failures.
If people truly believe that a fix is as simple as enacting things like Glass Steagall again, then all that will happen is the same stuff over again in 20 years time.
The US Banking system is flawed as it predicated on creating wealth out of debt. From the day it was decided that America could BORROW its way to prosperity THIS day of reckoning was inevitable.
Derivatives trading is a much larger culprit here then subprime mortgages and Glass Steagall did nothing to prevent derivatives trading.
A senior official in the Clinton administration warned about derivatives training in the mid 1990's and this while Glass Steagall still on the books. She was silenced by Greenspan and Rubin who believed they could pursue a policy of prosperity through debt.
.
I'm angrier than I sound "
http://www.nader.org/
Rolling the Dice on Derivatives
.
Yup - the "country was stampeded" into rewarding the bank robbers, even though the vast majority of said country saw through the shit and said no f**king way, just like the "country was stampeded" into the illegal invasion of Iraq, even though the majority of said country was opposed to said illegal invasion up until the shock and awe party began.
Of course, the country WASN'T stampeded when Uncle Sam handed the OTHER $2 trillion to said bank robbers, or when "we" "bought" AIG for $85 billion + $40 billion, or when billions were pumped into money markets, or Big Auto's pockets, or foreign banks - because "we" didn't have a f**king say in the matter.
NS doesn't even get the figure right - it was $850 billion, and that's only if one chooses to believe the most dishonest administration in American history.
I mean... er... whoopee! Problems solved! Now get back to f**king work. Didn't y'all hear Brittany's back???
According to the New York Times, Treasury officials strongly assured Morgan Stanley's Japanese funding savior—Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)—that its $9 billion investment in the once-mighty Wall Street player will be protected. The Treasury's reassurance came after "two days of tense negotiations" between the firms. The deal is seen as "a crucial step in the government’s strategy for revitalizing the financial system by luring outside investment while it considers buying stock in banks directly," the NYT reports.*
http://tbm.thebigmoney.com/features/todays-business-press/2008/10/13/meet-new-top-bankers-you
wild;)
"the Wall Street bailout that was supposed to save the economy from collapse is a flop."
Not for who got the money.
.
Bush played '' GOTCHA" again...
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Nannie, if this country had more people like you and I voting our minds and hearts where it counts instead of a losers' electorate allowing the media to convince these corn-fed brains the notion that there are only two choices, this country would've been a hell of a lot better off already. Too bad the two-party mental disease continues to plague the electorate and any attempts to convince them out of it results in hostility, be it jokes or even violence, just because one makes no bones about his/her preference to vote 3rd party.
If Nader had picked Mckinney, he would be even stronger and would give Obama and Palin a double-knock out punch for exploiting women and minorites.
Good luck.
Only a multiparty fix could end the duopoly. A third party can never get on its legs because it has to do so at the expense of one of the two, and the majority of adherents will never jump to the yearling party and leave the field to the main opponent. And without a parliamentary system rather than the mess the yokels left us with 220 years a ago, no multiparty system can be implemented.
In rough figures, the $700 billion bailout is the equivalent of having spent a million dollars a day since Jesus was born.
You mean since the Spring of 4 B.C. ?
US Treasury names Chicago firm as adviser on bailout plan - Ali Baba & Sons?
The rescue plan, known as the Troubled Relief Asset Program (TRAP), was set up
under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act passed earlier this month.
Who saying it isn't working??? Dow up 950 points today! Yippie! happy days are here again - for us rich people anyway.
Now, go back to your 60 hour/week, $8.00/hour job (and no overtime, because under the new laws, you are now an exempt supervisor - of yourself) and quit complaining. At that wage and hours you are "middle class" what do you want?
yep...& gasoline in my town yesterday was $2.98/gal. ($0.65 reduction in last 3 days) yippie!
Could that be a clue?? (the lower gas price) The longrunning gasoline swindle, noteably blamed on 'unknown speculators'...the common excuse: 'too complicated' for the public to understand..."just absorb it, shut-up, & drill baby drill".
And every democrat & republican on the boob tube today, still claims 'OMG 700b is going out of the country for oil' and they want to blame us...like it is a bad, bad thing. This USA has been EXTENSIVELY importing oil for 30+years (get over it Pelosi).
Don't worry Pelosi...I won't forget that it was your behest, earlier this year, to trade the national reserve of sweet crude FOR the bottom of the barrel. (That huge PAYDAY kinda went unnoticed} Thats ok, I never believed there was a national reserve in the first place, other than in some obscure accounting book.
Those governmental bureaucrats would like you to believe that that 700b export 'going out of the country for oil' is the government's money. It is in no way government raised money, or expensed by our untrustworthy government. We buy our gas from the private oil companys/supplier...So if the Government wants to blame 'someone' for mass imports, at least get it right.
It is your saintly big oil companys that drive those mass oil imports. It is the big oil companys that buy from anywhere, reguardless the regime. It is big oil that drives the price, and got paid plenty. It is big oil that watched the 'unknown speculators' raise the world price of oil for a really nice PAYDAY!
I for one say..It aint working, it is theft.
wild;)
Lower gasoline prices are NOT a good thing. This will be a big setback for fossil fuel usage reduction.
BTW, along with higher stock prices, oil went up considerably too.
Right after the election, crude oil prices will sore as was the case in 2004 and 2006. Crude oil prices will come closer to 200 a barrell come next year so don't worry. Fossil fuel usage cutback isn't off yet. It's the election season phonies.
It's a good thing for NOW, USAn. The prices rose too quickly for the society to properly adjust. It takes time to wear out the old gas guzzlers and gas prices rising steeply, too quickly, harmed the rest of the economy. It was another chimp driven screw up.
Wild, we recently discovered that the Banks were investing in oil and driving up the price using our money. Once again, the banks are quietly working against the best interests of the American people. Now we are going to invest in them, bail them out, and do so without a voting voice in the banking corporations. Once the banks are solvent we lose our leverage to make proper banking regulation changes. We are just pawns in this game and until the public shocks the system, we will remain so.
.
http://www.countercurrents.org/nader300508.htm
What's Really Driving
The High Price Of Oil?
By Ralph Nader 30 May, 2008
[snipit]
Imagine, our government is letting your price for gasoline and home heating oil be determined by a gambling casino on Wall Street called NYMEX. The people need regulatory protection from speculators and an excess profits tax on Big Oil.
In addition, a sane government would see the present price crises as an opportunity to expand our passenger and freight railroad capacity and technology.
A sane government would drop all subsidies and tax loopholes for Big Oil’s huge profits and other fossil fuels and promote a national mission to solarize our economy to achieve major savings from energy conservation technology, retrofitting buildings, and upgrading efficiency standards for motor vehicles, home appliances, industrial engines and electric generating plants.
Those are the permanent ways to achieve energy independence, reduce our trade deficit, create good jobs that can’t be exported and protect the environmental health of people and nature.
Those are the reforms and advances that a muscular consumer, worker and small business revolt can focus on in the coming weeks.
What say you, America?
Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent.
.
950 eh....guess the market wasn't as bad as they want us to think!
wild;)